SORRELL v. MCGUIGANAnd the truly sad part is lots of persons here will continue to be ignorant as they choose to remain so.
John Bad Elk vs United States should be required reading for every "law enforcement" officer.
Thanks for the link. Good read.mark edward marchiafava wrote:SORRELL v. MCGUIGANAnd the truly sad part is lots of persons here will continue to be ignorant as they choose to remain so.
John Bad Elk vs United States should be required reading for every "law enforcement" officer.
Here is a case where a police officer is expected to know clearly established law.
Take a look at the second to last paragraph on page 7...
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011565.U.pdf
And their apologists too.And the truly sad part is lots of persons here will continue to be ignorant as they choose to remain so.
John Bad Elk vs United States should be required reading for every "law enforcement" officer.
Very interesting. Do you have any information about the final outcome? The opinion affirmed the denial of McGuigan's immunity, but I'd like to know what, if any, judgement Sorrell got after it was decided that the officer wasn't immune.mark edward marchiafava wrote:SORRELL v. MCGUIGANAnd the truly sad part is lots of persons here will continue to be ignorant as they choose to remain so.
John Bad Elk vs United States should be required reading for every "law enforcement" officer.
Here is a case where a police officer is expected to know clearly established law.
Take a look at the second to last paragraph on page 7...
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011565.U.pdf
dlofton wrote:. . . I just want the board to fully understand that not all police officers know every law. I have been an officer for more than 15 years and I can say without a doubt that I do not know every law, ordinance, statute, Vernon civil code, CCP, or case law that has ever been created for the State of Texas. . . .
Of courseofficers, including you, may not know every law. So you enforce what you know, and you get in touch with your supervisor or the prosecutor on things you don't know or are unsure of before you make a possiblyunlawful detention or arrest.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, as we so often hear, right? But it's a two way street.It'snot an excuse for illegal activity by citizens or unlawful detentions or arrests by police, correct? If an officer observes something heis unfamiliar with and can't quite articulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a violation of law, he should immediately contact his supervisor while keeping the subject in view. That seems tome an easy and reasonable course of action. It sure would save a lot of taxpayer money which goes out to settle such preventablelawsuits.
May 20, 2009
If I were Christopher Fetters of Michigan and I got my gun taken away and harrassed by the locals I would eat them for lunch and take this as far as it can possibly go!
Lisa Gayle Sikes
of Austin, Texas
I agree.
Chris White
Detroit, Michigan
Yes, that is very true, hold the ones who are the originators of the problem accountable as well.Ignorance is no excuse... Cute.
So, how does this absolve those ignorant persons who created this ordinance?
Such ordinance being instructive by nature to a Police Officer.
Sue the city, every individual still alive who may have caused it to come into effect, and those currently enforcing it.
Why doesn't anyone ever suggest placing the names of the legislators who create the ordinance on the lawsuit? It is, after all, at the root of the matter. And ignorance (or perhaps arrogance) is still no excuse...
The difference is, No allegations were made that Mr. Fetters ever threatened anyone, or in any other way disturbed the peace. There is a difference between someone complaining to the police that you have a gun, and your threatening them with one. You don't have to have been doing anything for someone to lodge a complaint.Can't they get their story straight?
Early in the article they say....
People carrying weapons can be frightening and the department received several verbal complaints about the man, a department official said.
But later they say....
"No allegations were ever made that Mr. Fetters ever threatened anyone, or in any other way disturbed the peace on the day of his arrest," Dulan stated in the announcement of the suit on Tuesday.
So if no allegations were made, where did the SEVERAL verbal complaints come from, and why was he stopped and his gun taken?
Just food for thought.